Governor Newsom signs bill to protect kids from social media addiction(gov.ca.gov)
gov.ca.gov
Governor Newsom signs bill to protect kids from social media addiction
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/09/20/governor-newsom-signs-landmark-bill-to-protect-kids-from-social-media-addiction-takes-action-on-other-measures/
171 comments
Banning phones from school as the default should have been included.
I don't know why this is hard. At least in the classroom if not during the entire school day.
You get a cabinet with a bunch of cubbie holes, kids put their phone in at the beginning of class, they take it out at the end of class. They can even lock and each kid takes a key with them if theft is a concern. It doesn't seem that complicated. They have these things outside every SCIF. I know they exist.
You get a cabinet with a bunch of cubbie holes, kids put their phone in at the beginning of class, they take it out at the end of class. They can even lock and each kid takes a key with them if theft is a concern. It doesn't seem that complicated. They have these things outside every SCIF. I know they exist.
I'm young enough that smartphones were just hitting the market when I was in high school, but old enough that using your phone in class was still totally verboten. (We all tried to skirt the rules[1], of course, but we knew the rules were unambiguously a thing, and knew there'd be consequences if we got caught.[2]) And for the most part, teachers didn't have to implement any special solutions; we kept them on us at all times, and if a teacher heard/saw your phone, they were liable to take it for the class or for the day.
So the current situation with out-of-control phone use in schools is interesting/puzzling to me, because clearly something's changed since then—but I don't think "better smartphones" are the differentiating factor here. Something's shifted with how schools enforce (or don't enforce) these policies, or with kids' relationship to their phones (and believe me, I was plenty hooked on mine back then too :P), or something else entirely.
It's also puzzling when people argue that smartphones have opened a Pandora's box that makes it impossible to control student behavior—because I know firsthand that that's not true!
[1] I think the threat of punishment also forced us to be relatively discreet about it. If you're texting in class, you have your phone on silent, brightness all the way down, barely sticking out of your bag...
[2] Some teachers admittedly gave more of a shit than others, but I rarely saw students taking advantage of that in a disruptive way—the most blatant thing you'd see is a kid listening to music on headphones during art class or something. I might've been the biggest offender in that regard, because I would occasionally bust out a Wiimote and N64 emulator to play Mario 64 on my phone, but I knew when I could get away with that and when I couldn't.
So the current situation with out-of-control phone use in schools is interesting/puzzling to me, because clearly something's changed since then—but I don't think "better smartphones" are the differentiating factor here. Something's shifted with how schools enforce (or don't enforce) these policies, or with kids' relationship to their phones (and believe me, I was plenty hooked on mine back then too :P), or something else entirely.
It's also puzzling when people argue that smartphones have opened a Pandora's box that makes it impossible to control student behavior—because I know firsthand that that's not true!
[1] I think the threat of punishment also forced us to be relatively discreet about it. If you're texting in class, you have your phone on silent, brightness all the way down, barely sticking out of your bag...
[2] Some teachers admittedly gave more of a shit than others, but I rarely saw students taking advantage of that in a disruptive way—the most blatant thing you'd see is a kid listening to music on headphones during art class or something. I might've been the biggest offender in that regard, because I would occasionally bust out a Wiimote and N64 emulator to play Mario 64 on my phone, but I knew when I could get away with that and when I couldn't.
In my opinion it's 100% the parent's fault. I have multiple teachers in my family and over the past 10 or so years the occurrence of absurd parental expectations has skyrocketed.
These parents not only want, but EXPECT, to be able to directly communicate with their child at any given time. It's also extremely common for them to track their children's phones via Life360 and thoroughly monitor every aspect of their kid's lives. This even, now, extends to college. Parents will literally email professors and perform tasks for their kids (or adults).
The helicopter parenting in the US has gotten completely out of control and nobody knows what to do. Kids aren't playing outside because of phones; they're not playing outside because parents are terrified.
Kids no longer even have to argue for their grades. The parents will, literally, side with their kid and force better grades for their kid. Parent-teacher conference isn't what you think it is anymore.
Teachers don't give a shit because they can't. Nobody supports them here. I mean, they can't even implement a late policy anymore. Seriously, if you don't accept an assignment that's 1 week late, you'll never hear the end of it. And then the principal complains, and then you're fucked. Which is why we have no late policy and infinite retakes and on and on. They couldn't enforce no phones because they have no power.
These parents not only want, but EXPECT, to be able to directly communicate with their child at any given time. It's also extremely common for them to track their children's phones via Life360 and thoroughly monitor every aspect of their kid's lives. This even, now, extends to college. Parents will literally email professors and perform tasks for their kids (or adults).
The helicopter parenting in the US has gotten completely out of control and nobody knows what to do. Kids aren't playing outside because of phones; they're not playing outside because parents are terrified.
Kids no longer even have to argue for their grades. The parents will, literally, side with their kid and force better grades for their kid. Parent-teacher conference isn't what you think it is anymore.
Teachers don't give a shit because they can't. Nobody supports them here. I mean, they can't even implement a late policy anymore. Seriously, if you don't accept an assignment that's 1 week late, you'll never hear the end of it. And then the principal complains, and then you're fucked. Which is why we have no late policy and infinite retakes and on and on. They couldn't enforce no phones because they have no power.
Students have gotten smartphones at younger and younger ages since you were in school.
They got addicted to the dopamine feedback loop smartphones provide when their brains were even further undeveloped and don't remember a time before that so this is their norm.
Parents have thrown up their hands and given up, pretending that it's impossible to avoid buying their kids expensive super computers engineered to steal the attention of their users rather than just buying their kids dumb Nokia bricks and letting them learn to be bored and cultivate the ability to direct their attention and concentration.
They got addicted to the dopamine feedback loop smartphones provide when their brains were even further undeveloped and don't remember a time before that so this is their norm.
Parents have thrown up their hands and given up, pretending that it's impossible to avoid buying their kids expensive super computers engineered to steal the attention of their users rather than just buying their kids dumb Nokia bricks and letting them learn to be bored and cultivate the ability to direct their attention and concentration.
> I'm young enough that smartphones were just hitting the market when I was in high school, but old enough that using your phone in class was still totally verboten.
When you were in high school, none of your teachers had grown up with smartphones. Today, many have, maybe even a majority depending on the teacher demographics at a particular school.
Not saying this is the entire explanation, or exactly what it might explain, but it seems likely to at least be related somehow.
When you were in high school, none of your teachers had grown up with smartphones. Today, many have, maybe even a majority depending on the teacher demographics at a particular school.
Not saying this is the entire explanation, or exactly what it might explain, but it seems likely to at least be related somehow.
Yeah, this seems absolutely like a relevant observation -- it might be massively increasing the number of "empathetic" teachers.
To elaborate: Certainly for me as a highschooler, I was bored out of my mind with how easy and mind-numbing the curriculum was, and as my mother refused to let me drop out and try for college early, I felt stuck for years just feeling utterly imprisoned and wasting my time. Books, drawing, writing, sure, but no doubt about it, my phone (and through it, the internet) was also one of my big escapes back then.
Noted because yeah, I can actually tell that prior to thinking about this now, in the place of many teachers I might have been very sympathetic to teens using their phones "discretely", even if it might not at all be the best thing for most of them. Especially anyone for whom it's the only source of entertainment or anti-boredom.
Can't say I understand it for elementary schoolers, or students who are obvious underperformers, but it does seem teachers who grew up with smartphones before they were out of high school could be a big aspect, just from the empathy factor.
To elaborate: Certainly for me as a highschooler, I was bored out of my mind with how easy and mind-numbing the curriculum was, and as my mother refused to let me drop out and try for college early, I felt stuck for years just feeling utterly imprisoned and wasting my time. Books, drawing, writing, sure, but no doubt about it, my phone (and through it, the internet) was also one of my big escapes back then.
Noted because yeah, I can actually tell that prior to thinking about this now, in the place of many teachers I might have been very sympathetic to teens using their phones "discretely", even if it might not at all be the best thing for most of them. Especially anyone for whom it's the only source of entertainment or anti-boredom.
Can't say I understand it for elementary schoolers, or students who are obvious underperformers, but it does seem teachers who grew up with smartphones before they were out of high school could be a big aspect, just from the empathy factor.
Punishment is effectively not allowed at many schools because parents suck.
Kids complain to parents.
Parents complain to teacher. Teacher tells parent to pound sand. Parent complains to administration about unfair teacher. Administration takes a “customer is _always_ right” mindset for various reasons, and teacher told to not enforce. Or the rule is changed.
Some parents refuse to allow their child to do anything wrong (by moving the goalposts of “wrong”, assuming their child is always right, etc), some have anxiety if they can’t reach their child instantly via text, some parents refuse to enforce rules they don’t understand or agree with.
Kids complain to parents.
Parents complain to teacher. Teacher tells parent to pound sand. Parent complains to administration about unfair teacher. Administration takes a “customer is _always_ right” mindset for various reasons, and teacher told to not enforce. Or the rule is changed.
Some parents refuse to allow their child to do anything wrong (by moving the goalposts of “wrong”, assuming their child is always right, etc), some have anxiety if they can’t reach their child instantly via text, some parents refuse to enforce rules they don’t understand or agree with.
Prohibit phones in AP classes, allow phones in the GA or remedial classes. If a parent complains about their kid having to put away their phone, then they can switch classes to be with the rest of the distracted kids. Normally you'd be wary about creating this kind of segregation, but with the loss of effective intelligence from being tethered to a surveillance industry terminal, this arrangement would likely end up expanding access to AP classes.
Oh, but my child is the best!
Have you ever gotten into that situation, as a kid, where you argued with an adult about how stupid their kid was? That's the summum of the situation you just described. Good times.
Have you ever gotten into that situation, as a kid, where you argued with an adult about how stupid their kid was? That's the summum of the situation you just described. Good times.
"Something's shifted with how schools enforce (or don't enforce) these policies"
This is it. The other parts are tangential to the true cause.
This is it. The other parts are tangential to the true cause.
Based on my current understanding of the climate teachers work in, it's probably a mix of parents and admin. Based on what I've heard, parents very frequently get angry when teachers try to enforce rules on their kids. So they go complain to admin, admin backs up the parents, and leaves the teachers out to dry. Then you have the helicopter parents who can't stand for their child to be inaccessible to them for a few hours every day.
Plus, the phones are much more expensive than they used to be. A teacher confiscating a phone could very well be confiscating $1,000+, making it a harder justify to a lot of parents.
Plus, the phones are much more expensive than they used to be. A teacher confiscating a phone could very well be confiscating $1,000+, making it a harder justify to a lot of parents.
"a mix of parents and admin."
Yes, sorry, I meant enforcement in general. Parents and admins are absolutely a big part of that.
"A teacher confiscating a phone could very well be confiscating $1,000+, making it a harder justify to a lot of parents."
Those parents should probably reconsider their justification of buying a $1k device for a child if that child can't be responsible with it.
Yes, sorry, I meant enforcement in general. Parents and admins are absolutely a big part of that.
"A teacher confiscating a phone could very well be confiscating $1,000+, making it a harder justify to a lot of parents."
Those parents should probably reconsider their justification of buying a $1k device for a child if that child can't be responsible with it.
That and cases of teenagers assaulting teachers that dare take away their phone. For many teachers it’s not worth the career and physical risk. If kids don’t want to learn they are not the enforcers. They didn’t buy these kids the phones.
And what of the kids that do want yo learn if the phones are causing disruptions and promoting an anti-learning culture?
I think the lack of discipline (not just punishment, but more order and integrity) in schools will only worsen the societal problems we are already seeing. Is there any reason to think that allowing kids to be thugs in school won't lead to them being thugs in life?
I think the lack of discipline (not just punishment, but more order and integrity) in schools will only worsen the societal problems we are already seeing. Is there any reason to think that allowing kids to be thugs in school won't lead to them being thugs in life?
A tech high school machining instructor I know does this and that is how he takes attendance.
Almost every kid has a phone...if the phone isn't in the cubby they aren't counted as being there. Cabinet locked at beginning of class.
There are only 2 students out of his entire year that don't have a phone and he makes allowances for them.
Almost every kid has a phone...if the phone isn't in the cubby they aren't counted as being there. Cabinet locked at beginning of class.
There are only 2 students out of his entire year that don't have a phone and he makes allowances for them.
It's hard because the parents object. They want to be able to directly reach their children in the event of an emergency.
Yes. Quoting https://www.businessinsider.com/high-school-teacher-all-scho... :
> In talking to teachers across the country, the reasons phone policies don't work or are not implemented center on three main issues: safety (parents want their children to be reachable, especially during our era of heightened school violence), liability (phones are expensive, and in some districts, teachers have been held liable when they confiscated a phone the student later claimed was damaged), and lack of clear, consistent policy support (it can be difficult to rally an entire staff around a policy, maintain energy for its consistent enforcement, and make sure the work of its enforcement is upheld equitably).
> In talking to teachers across the country, the reasons phone policies don't work or are not implemented center on three main issues: safety (parents want their children to be reachable, especially during our era of heightened school violence), liability (phones are expensive, and in some districts, teachers have been held liable when they confiscated a phone the student later claimed was damaged), and lack of clear, consistent policy support (it can be difficult to rally an entire staff around a policy, maintain energy for its consistent enforcement, and make sure the work of its enforcement is upheld equitably).
My own experience with nieces nephews and niblings agrees that it's pretty much this. It's more about the parents' wishes than the children's demands.
Phones are powerful tools. Ideally kids would learn how to use them properly while respecting their sharp edges. Ya know, more work for teachers on budgets that are already under attack and such.
Phones are powerful tools. Ideally kids would learn how to use them properly while respecting their sharp edges. Ya know, more work for teachers on budgets that are already under attack and such.
I'm sorry but no. There is no emergency I can think of that either can't wait till lunch (or end of class, whenever the kids are allowed to check), or else calling the school office directly (remember those?), or even just showing up to the school to pickup their kid in person.
By the way, most parents I speak to would love to have their kids off their phones and focusing on school during the day. This whole "parents, emergency" argument seems highly suspicious to me.
By the way, most parents I speak to would love to have their kids off their phones and focusing on school during the day. This whole "parents, emergency" argument seems highly suspicious to me.
They want to say their last words when the next mass shooting happens in a week https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_th...
> There is no emergency I can think of that either can't wait till lunch
Respectfully, most parents I've met do not agree with you. And I don't think that the random events like school shootings and bomb threats have helped them relax into the same environment we had in the 90's.
Respectfully, most parents I've met do not agree with you. And I don't think that the random events like school shootings and bomb threats have helped them relax into the same environment we had in the 90's.
I guess we’ll see if that’s representative, there’s a clear backlash, so at least a significant proportion don’t agree, and don’t appreciate the disruption and peer pressure dynamics this creates.
I’m certainly in the camp of personal devices having no place outside of a backpack. We shouldn’t let our anxiety run things.
I’m certainly in the camp of personal devices having no place outside of a backpack. We shouldn’t let our anxiety run things.
If there is an emergency, a parent can deal with it the same way they would have 20 years ago: call the school, and they will send someone to grab your kid from the classroom. This was not a particularly rare occurrence when I was in school.
The parent has to talk to the school on the phone to release their kid from class anyway.
The parent has to talk to the school on the phone to release their kid from class anyway.
What are they gonna do? Blow up their kids phone in the middle of a shooting, risking the shooter discovering their kid's location if the phone isn't on silent?
What does this actually accomplish that improves kids' safety?
Especially when to satisfy their anxiety, they give their kids expensive electronics that drastically increase their risk for depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia, disordered eating, executive dysfunction, etc.?
What does this actually accomplish that improves kids' safety?
Especially when to satisfy their anxiety, they give their kids expensive electronics that drastically increase their risk for depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia, disordered eating, executive dysfunction, etc.?
There are many parents with different preferences than you.
So if a child says they don’t have a phone are you going to search them?
But you don’t even have to take the phone out of the possession of the student.
They use these at some phone free concerts.
https://www.overyondr.com/phone-locking-pouch
But you don’t even have to take the phone out of the possession of the student.
They use these at some phone free concerts.
https://www.overyondr.com/phone-locking-pouch
> So if a child says they don’t have a phone are you going to search them?
If a child says they don’t have any cigarettes or a knife etc. etc. are you going to search them?
Most kids follow the rules. A few troublemakers with phones won’t make a difference and can be easily handled by existing disciplinary actions.
If a child says they don’t have any cigarettes or a knife etc. etc. are you going to search them?
Most kids follow the rules. A few troublemakers with phones won’t make a difference and can be easily handled by existing disciplinary actions.
You don’t have kids do you?
Just as a proxy, weee use is against the rules by definition for middle and high schoolers
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36863048/
Just as a proxy, weee use is against the rules by definition for middle and high schoolers
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36863048/
I do, do you? I also used to be a kid myself. What does lifetime use have to do with smoking _on school property_?
So you think kids “follow the rules” and “say no to drugs”, don’t engage in underaged drinking, don’t lie and say they are over 18 to view porn etc?
No, but they are punished for those. I remember, kids used to smoke in schools. They got detention and their parents were told.
I don't get it, people break rules so just don't have them? What? Why would we do that?
I don't get it, people break rules so just don't have them? What? Why would we do that?
Of course not. This is not some rhetorical gotcha you think it is, there’s a huge difference between rules like “don’t use a phone in class” and “don’t drink alcohol ever in your life anywhere”.
I fail to see the difference in “kids following the rules in this one specific case” and statistically we know that kids usually don’t follow the rules that adults set for them if they can get away with it.
Heck even when I was in school kids had beepers (late 80s - early 90s) when they were not allowed to.
Heck even when I was in school kids had beepers (late 80s - early 90s) when they were not allowed to.
You don't have to search the students. Or even put the phones in a locker. You just make the rules about them known, and if students are found using a phone during class, they can just be punished with detention/suspension.
I don't understand why this is hard to enforce, or requires special laws. We had rules about not using (feature) phones back when I was in middle school (~2002), and you just kept your phone in your backpack/pocket until the class was over. It worked.
I don't understand why this is hard to enforce, or requires special laws. We had rules about not using (feature) phones back when I was in middle school (~2002), and you just kept your phone in your backpack/pocket until the class was over. It worked.
In Seattle they won't even expel students committing violent crimes in schools. There's no punishment available for any behavior.
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/student-discipline-are-...
If someone brandished a knife at my workplace they would be immediately fired, never to return. At SPS that's just a stern talkin' to.
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/student-discipline-are-...
If someone brandished a knife at my workplace they would be immediately fired, never to return. At SPS that's just a stern talkin' to.
That's weird. I've mostly heard about the opposite at schools, like someone getting reamed for bringing cake and a plastic knife to cut it. But I guess that was probably over a decade ago. Has 'zero tolerance' so thoroughly reversed?
If they say they don’t have a phone, fine. If they later have a phone out in class, you tell them to put it in a cubby. If they have it and don’t take it out in class it’s not a problem.
That’s exactly what they use at some of the schools that tried it (and there’s an arms race where some kids figured out how to hack these devices and unlock them). Locking up thousands and thousands of dollars worth of phones for the day is way too much liability for a school otherwise.
Society can choose to pass on bowing to the God of insurance in this case :)
I imagine it is not difficult to make a phone detector. A phone is sending almost constantly. If a phone has to be in flight mode the whole lesson then there is no reason to bring one
Would you want it to ignore the teacher's phone?
It is extremely hard to make a phone detector that's able to detect only phones in a specific room, considering how far the cellular signals can travel, and how pervasive wifi is for everything
Just make every classroom a Faraday cage. No need to detect if you can disable.
Even airlines can’t really tell when all of the phones are in airplane mode…
If they don’t take it out and use it (or at least don’t get caught using it), what’s the problem? If they’re using a phone in class, take it like any other distraction.
I have four kids in school and while extreme incidents are rare, if I set my kid to school with a phone it would be to contact me in an emergency. I completely agree with no phones out, on silent, etc., but I’m unsure how I feel about schools taking away tools that could be used to get help.
I have four kids in school and while extreme incidents are rare, if I set my kid to school with a phone it would be to contact me in an emergency. I completely agree with no phones out, on silent, etc., but I’m unsure how I feel about schools taking away tools that could be used to get help.
I don't see a problem with taking the phone, as long as it's returned by the end of the day. The school should have your phone number on file and can reach you in an emergency. The situations where your child would specifically need to reach you on their own phone with no other possibilities of getting help (or getting their phone back in a hurry) while at school are so uncommon as to be not really with considering.
Seriously. Teachers don't even let kids go to the bathroom without permission. How phones were allowed by default boggles the mind.
I’d rather let administration for individual districts craft their own rules.
They have done well in districts my kids have been in.
State wide top down rules is too disconnected from the front lines for me to believe they’re anything but legislative theater.
They have done well in districts my kids have been in.
State wide top down rules is too disconnected from the front lines for me to believe they’re anything but legislative theater.
The problem is that districts and schools have tried this, but then parents complain and threaten to sue about "stealing the phone" and such. The district doesn't have a leg to stand on.
They need a state law to back them up so that they can tell the parents to take it to their legislature instead of the principal.
They need a state law to back them up so that they can tell the parents to take it to their legislature instead of the principal.
Every time I’ve seen phone rules deployed by a district they’ve been overwhelmingly popular.
This law affects companies, not students, as it should be. Enforcing limits on students is the job of parents, not teachers or police.
Parents have failed, government is for solving the collective action problem, we know what the best decision is for the kids.
I'm well aware of what this law does, but we are not talking about this law in this thread.
> Enforcing limits on students is the job of parents
Luckily in California we understand the value of protecting kids over uninformed adults. That's why we require vaccines to attend school.
> Enforcing limits on students is the job of parents
Luckily in California we understand the value of protecting kids over uninformed adults. That's why we require vaccines to attend school.
This is about individual freedoms, not public health, and is directly related to this post. Unfortunately, no law can protect against poor parenting.
> Unfortunately, no law can protect against poor parenting.
Oh, but they most certainly can. See the aforementioned vaccine laws. Or the law that provides free breakfast and lunch to every California student regardless of income. Of the law that requires dental coverage for anyone in the state under 18 (and provides it to those who can't afford it).
No matter how bad your parent is about feeding you, at least you know you'll get breakfast and lunch every school day, and you can get your teeth checked.
There are many laws that protect against poor parenting.
Oh, but they most certainly can. See the aforementioned vaccine laws. Or the law that provides free breakfast and lunch to every California student regardless of income. Of the law that requires dental coverage for anyone in the state under 18 (and provides it to those who can't afford it).
No matter how bad your parent is about feeding you, at least you know you'll get breakfast and lunch every school day, and you can get your teeth checked.
There are many laws that protect against poor parenting.
You can do both which is why I think it should be the default choice and up to admins to choose how to deviate from the default.
California already implemented that separately. Los Angeles Unified district opened the fall term enforcing the prohibition; the statewide mandate begins 2025.
You can't enforce silly laws. Who would enforce this ban? Teachers? That would be a school regulation, not a state law. Or do you want police walking around school arresting kids with phones? Do you enforce all of your guidance for your kids using legislation? A real solution to the distractions and harm that phones cause when used at school is harder, of course.
My child goes to a charter school in Arizona. Their policy is that phones are stored in lockers. If a kid is caught with their phone in the building then the phone is confiscated and brought to the office. The parents are notified and the phone is only given back to the parent. I don’t understand why something similar couldn’t be implemented in public schools thus requiring no state law.
as a parent with kids in school I am 100% in favor of this. In my son's middle school schools are not allowed in class but that puts the burden of enforcement on the teachers instead of just making it a blanket rule that you can't have it at school period
I use to be pro-phone ban in schools but with all the creepy crap going on in public school systems, I think kids should be able to record their teachers/other students/staff.
Larrikin(4)
Hungary just banned phones (and also all devices capable of connecting to the internet, and/or capable of recording audio and video) from school.
I'm a student in an IT technical school. The only thing this affected is now instead of my classmates playing on their phones during class, they're now loudly playing card games - and now people who do want to learn can't because the teacher has to constantly stop and yell at the people playing cards.
I think students should be able to do whatever they want during breaks - they can do actually useful things with their devices, other than scrolling social media or playing games.
Also, this new ban completely eliminated kahoot and similar, since phones are collected at the start of the day and giving them out for a class involves incredible amounts of paperwork. (So much for modern teaching/learning methods)
I'm a student in an IT technical school. The only thing this affected is now instead of my classmates playing on their phones during class, they're now loudly playing card games - and now people who do want to learn can't because the teacher has to constantly stop and yell at the people playing cards.
I think students should be able to do whatever they want during breaks - they can do actually useful things with their devices, other than scrolling social media or playing games.
Also, this new ban completely eliminated kahoot and similar, since phones are collected at the start of the day and giving them out for a class involves incredible amounts of paperwork. (So much for modern teaching/learning methods)
i’m so glad to be finished with high school with all this happening. as a trans girl who was closeted in high school, being able to use my phone in between classes to text my accepting friends was the only way i survived. it sucks seeing that legislation doesn’t seem to consider that at all really.
If you listen to legislators pushing social media bans, they are taking cases like this into intense consideration in order to maximize the damage it would have on kids like you.
From [1]:
> A co-sponsor of a bipartisan bill intended to protect children from the dangers of social media and other online content appeared to suggest in March that the measure could be used to steer kids away from seeing transgender content online.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/sena...
From [1]:
> A co-sponsor of a bipartisan bill intended to protect children from the dangers of social media and other online content appeared to suggest in March that the measure could be used to steer kids away from seeing transgender content online.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/sena...
:( i hate this country…
This gets messy because you already have problems with (mostly substitute) teachers ripping out implants (ex: insulin pump), cutting wires/tubes, or preventing kids from using their phone to monitor blood sugar, etc because they try to be "tough" on the no phones rule.
you are suggesting that life-threatening levels of dependency requiring a phone to continue to live, is common enough to warrant public policy ?
Yes. There are a lot of devices that support people with disabilities that nowadays use a phone as their interface. In the past most had their own devices but phones are near universally available so they have become the go-to interface for most of these devices.
I really wish legislation like this was structured as an experiment, so we could robustly determine if it worked. Otherwise someone will come along in ten years and rip it out, saying there’s no evidence it improved things.
[deleted]
The US is structured like an experiment; different states have different policies, so in ten years we can compare the mental health of teens in California with teens in other states without this bill and see if it made any difference.
Laboratories of democracy, I get it… but simply allowing law to vary by state is just the enabler. There’s a lot of structure you could add to make it an actual experiment.
There are too many confounding factors for that to be useful.
The sad thing is that politicians who get these laws passed don't want to collect data about whether the laws were successful.
If they collect data and it turns out the laws aren't helpful or the laws are actually harmful, then the politician's career and reputation may be trashed. But if they pretend like the law can't possibly be bad and never check on that, then they're protected.
If they collect data and it turns out the laws aren't helpful or the laws are actually harmful, then the politician's career and reputation may be trashed. But if they pretend like the law can't possibly be bad and never check on that, then they're protected.
Nothing but praise but I wonder how can it be implemented? Facebook and other social platforms already have set an age limit that kids usually bypass.
Each company's policy of seting an age limit is a legal tool to protect the company, not a social tool to protect the children. This law, while also being a legal tool, is specifically designed to be implemented with social tools by the professionals who work with children.
Instagram and TikTok saw this coming. Both have recently dropped features to meet the spirit of this law.
TikTok now has "feed mirroring" for adults to use with their teens, so they can see what the algorithm is pushing at them. And Instagram now has a teen mode that lets parents choose which topics show up in their feed and disables notifications at night.
TikTok now has "feed mirroring" for adults to use with their teens, so they can see what the algorithm is pushing at them. And Instagram now has a teen mode that lets parents choose which topics show up in their feed and disables notifications at night.
This looks stupid.
If I am reading the legislation [0] correctly, teenagers now have to tell Spotify what song to play one after another, every single time one track ends. Unless someone has previously made a playlist (I think) - in which case you can only listen to playlists that you or (someone else has made) if you are a teenager.
I'm surprised that the music industry let this happen to them.
[0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
If I am reading the legislation [0] correctly, teenagers now have to tell Spotify what song to play one after another, every single time one track ends. Unless someone has previously made a playlist (I think) - in which case you can only listen to playlists that you or (someone else has made) if you are a teenager.
I'm surprised that the music industry let this happen to them.
[0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
oh no. how will they survive?
For this interested in topic, you might enjoy reading The Anxious Generation, which has been on the NYT nonfiction bestseller list for a while. It goes into the data on how teen mental illness rates greatly increased when smartphones (apps + the front-facing camera) and social media algorithms were developed. The harmful effects are obvious to anyone who ever interacts with kids. The book also proposes several basic changes like delaying when kids are given smartphones and disallowing phones in schools, as well as advocating for play-based schools.
A lot of the content of that book has been thoroughly debunked. A good starting point if you’re curious: https://www.platformer.news/anxious-generation-jonathan-haid...
That’s a pretty poor starting point if you expect the reader to leave with the position that Haidt’s been discredited.
I’m curious, have you read the book?
I’m curious, have you read the book?
Debunked isn’t the correct term here. That would imply that the data is false or it’s misinformation. Instead the article you linked states:
Another quote from the article you linked
On the other hand, data on this issue is mixed, and some studies contradict one another.
Another quote from the article you linked
Haidt argues that waiting for stronger evidence could be even more dangerous. He writes: “If you listen to the alarm ringers and we turn out to be wrong, the costs are minimal and reversible. But if you listen to the skeptics and they turn out to be wrong, the costs are much larger and harder to reverse.” … as a mother, as someone who writes about the harms of tech and tech companies, I see his point.
Books were published that said the same things about video games, the last moral panic.
> prohibits online platforms from knowingly providing an addictive feed to a minor without parental consent
totally onboard with the concept; but what is the burden of proof that a feed is "addictive"? If it falls on the state, then this probably won't have much effect (other than maybe to scare tech companies to be a bit more careful, which is maybe the best we can hope for)
totally onboard with the concept; but what is the burden of proof that a feed is "addictive"? If it falls on the state, then this probably won't have much effect (other than maybe to scare tech companies to be a bit more careful, which is maybe the best we can hope for)
I'm sad about how smartphones have turned out. The effects are entirely dependent on how they are used. If used as a portable information retrieval device, camera, and communications tool, they make us smarter than ever before. But it seems most people have instead chosen to focus on attention-stealing data collection apps that encourage neuroticism, narcissism, and anxiety.
We had envisioned something like PADDs on Star Trek or the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but what we got was an jingly electronic mirror that bullies you. I don't know how we are so okay with this. Keeping phones out of schools is not the cure. Keeping evil and harmful apps off the phones is a more precise solution.
We had envisioned something like PADDs on Star Trek or the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but what we got was an jingly electronic mirror that bullies you. I don't know how we are so okay with this. Keeping phones out of schools is not the cure. Keeping evil and harmful apps off the phones is a more precise solution.
> But it seems most people have instead chosen to focus on attention-stealing data collection apps that encourage neuroticism, narcissism, and anxiety.
Most didn't actively make that choice. They were coerced, peer pressured, or otherwise tricked into making it.
> We had envisioned something like PADDs on Star Trek or the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but what we got was an jingly electronic mirror that bullies you.
Beautifully put.
Most didn't actively make that choice. They were coerced, peer pressured, or otherwise tricked into making it.
> We had envisioned something like PADDs on Star Trek or the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but what we got was an jingly electronic mirror that bullies you.
Beautifully put.
Florida already passed a similar law. Nice to see both left and right can agree that some things are common sense.
This. This and the recent trend to hold parents of juvenile mass shooters to account if they enabled the kid gives me hope that there our still functioning parts of our collective brains not completely rotted by the culture wars and twitter/x/facebook
Agree but I want to see this enforced not just on kids that walk into a school and opens fire. I want it enforced in large urban areas. Any minor that opens fire, their parents need to be arrested. The law is currently only being applied to kids that get their hands on so called assault rifles. It needs to be applied to handguns in urban areas that comprise the majority of shootings by minors.
I only support this if the minor is determined to have obtained the weapon from a parent that was negligent in preventing access to that weapon. E.g. when a parent fails to lock the weapons in a safe or purchases weapons for the child. I do not support this in instances where the minor unknowingly gets access to weapons behind the parent's back (illegally through telegram for example or through their friends).
As someone with a troubled teen and a witness to numerous other parents dealing with troubled teens, it's virtually impossible to prevent them from doing whatever they want these days unless you literally lock them up 24/7. Even then they will weaponize reporting you to CPS with lies about abuse. Many of these kids are growing up in perfectly decent homes and taught well by their parents, but they get influenced by their peers to cause trouble.
As someone with a troubled teen and a witness to numerous other parents dealing with troubled teens, it's virtually impossible to prevent them from doing whatever they want these days unless you literally lock them up 24/7. Even then they will weaponize reporting you to CPS with lies about abuse. Many of these kids are growing up in perfectly decent homes and taught well by their parents, but they get influenced by their peers to cause trouble.
[deleted]
If your kid is that problematic and wants to get CPS involved then throw them to CPS and let them ruin their lives. You clearly failed earlier on and can’t course correct any further.
You should’ve been more involved earlier on if your kid is getting involved in gang violence, getting weapons, and is going to be out there shooting people. You failed big time.
A lot of these kids don’t grow up in good homes - the parents are negligent and incompetent. They play dumb just like you are doing.
You should’ve been more involved earlier on if your kid is getting involved in gang violence, getting weapons, and is going to be out there shooting people. You failed big time.
A lot of these kids don’t grow up in good homes - the parents are negligent and incompetent. They play dumb just like you are doing.
> Children are not people, they are an extension of their parents, and bad children means bad parents.
Provide evidence for your claims, please. Having troubled children is bad enough without having to deal with this type of ignorance.
Provide evidence for your claims, please. Having troubled children is bad enough without having to deal with this type of ignorance.
[deleted]
Yes, anytime a parent is directly responsible or deliberately negligent and it leads to deaths, whether school or urban area. I mentioned mass shooting because that is the most visible instance where it has been applied so far. Let's not make it about politics (sigh, maybe I'm hoping for too much)
I mean, most people agree on 95% of policies. The media just focuses on the remaining 5% in which there is disagreement.
Not to drag this out in the mud, but that 5% is filled with some really nasty legislation and policies.
And yes, I'm mostly referring to Republican lead legislation that encourages or enforces conversion therapy, minority disenfranchisement (Haitians most recently, but also black, mMuslum, and Palestinian groups), and anti-LGBTQIA+ (more specifically anti-trans) actions.
And yes, I'm mostly referring to Republican lead legislation that encourages or enforces conversion therapy, minority disenfranchisement (Haitians most recently, but also black, mMuslum, and Palestinian groups), and anti-LGBTQIA+ (more specifically anti-trans) actions.
And it’s just as toothless and it will be unless they take the draconian measure of forcing everyone to verify thier ID before using the internet.
This is the end game, an internet where you need to upload pictures of yourself and your ID in order to do anything.
Legislators want it, site owners want to be able to prove their users are real people, advertisers, as well, etc.
Legislators want it, site owners want to be able to prove their users are real people, advertisers, as well, etc.
All I see is left and right agreeing that social media has become too dangerous and they need to create a moral panic and smokescreen as a pretext to regulate it. Same shit as the FUD around TikTok and "Chinese mind control."
Can social media be addictive? Yes. Should we trust the government when it claims it wants to "protect the children?" Absolutely not.
This will end up being about enabling surveillance, harassment of minorities and policing political wrongthink, like every other such initiative. And it's kind of sad that Hacker News, which is usually critical of the motives of government almost to a fault, is willing to let its hatred of social media excuse naked and authoritarian power grabs like this.
Like y'all rise up if Apple tries to track CP on people's phones but if someone declared all social media illegal tomorrow most people here would have a party.
Can social media be addictive? Yes. Should we trust the government when it claims it wants to "protect the children?" Absolutely not.
This will end up being about enabling surveillance, harassment of minorities and policing political wrongthink, like every other such initiative. And it's kind of sad that Hacker News, which is usually critical of the motives of government almost to a fault, is willing to let its hatred of social media excuse naked and authoritarian power grabs like this.
Like y'all rise up if Apple tries to track CP on people's phones but if someone declared all social media illegal tomorrow most people here would have a party.
You can trust that the government wants to protect the children. The question is what does "protect" really mean.
Western governments do a pretty good job of protecting kids from labour exploitation, for example.
But that's because it's relatively easy to enforce. Protecting them from other harms is more difficult and involves tradeoffs with personal or parental freedoms.
I really don't think these initiatives are intentional power grabs... although you're correct that opportunist entitites will exploit these regulations to empower themselves.
Western governments do a pretty good job of protecting kids from labour exploitation, for example.
But that's because it's relatively easy to enforce. Protecting them from other harms is more difficult and involves tradeoffs with personal or parental freedoms.
I really don't think these initiatives are intentional power grabs... although you're correct that opportunist entitites will exploit these regulations to empower themselves.
> You can trust that the government wants to protect the children.
The moment I hear a politician say "protect the children" is the moment that I want to know what kind of garbage they're trying to pull under our noses. It rarely comes across as being little more than a pretext to pass some other agenda through.
The moment I hear a politician say "protect the children" is the moment that I want to know what kind of garbage they're trying to pull under our noses. It rarely comes across as being little more than a pretext to pass some other agenda through.
The left and the right both agree 100% on protecting Israel, and social media is the biggest threat to Israel's existence given how low support for Israel has plummeted in Americans aged 18-25 thanks to unfiltered access to imagery from the war in Gaza.
>The left and the right both agree 100% on protecting Israel
Sorry I call bull on this. In the first part of your comment you say 'agree 100%' and in the latter part you yourself say 'how low support has plummeted' and imply social media is to blame. In what way is 'low support' == 'agree 100%' ? It sounds like you're calling for some form of censorship to enforce 100% agreement.
Sorry I call bull on this. In the first part of your comment you say 'agree 100%' and in the latter part you yourself say 'how low support has plummeted' and imply social media is to blame. In what way is 'low support' == 'agree 100%' ? It sounds like you're calling for some form of censorship to enforce 100% agreement.
The American military industrial complex couldn't care less about optics. The Iraq war led to some of the biggest protests in history and it didn't matter, and the current social media landscape doesn't actually matter wrt American policy in Israel.
Also, it shouldn't be the role of social media to ensure the existence of Israel, even if one assumes that opposition to their actions in Gaza is de facto opposition to their existence as a state, which I wouldn't.
Also what you're describing immediate, unfiltered journalism which provides one of the strongest arguments against having social media be regulated by governments. Seeing the cruelty and violence of government unfiltered by media gatekeepers and in realtime is a good thing. Americans should have the opportunity to question their government's unwavering support for Israel and the consequences of their own imperialism.
Of course social media can also be just as much a platform for propaganda and misinformation as traditional media, but it's also easier to undermine than traditional media. We need a way for the masses to be able to publish to the masses, and social media is currently the best option to allow that, even with its downsides.
Also, it shouldn't be the role of social media to ensure the existence of Israel, even if one assumes that opposition to their actions in Gaza is de facto opposition to their existence as a state, which I wouldn't.
Also what you're describing immediate, unfiltered journalism which provides one of the strongest arguments against having social media be regulated by governments. Seeing the cruelty and violence of government unfiltered by media gatekeepers and in realtime is a good thing. Americans should have the opportunity to question their government's unwavering support for Israel and the consequences of their own imperialism.
Of course social media can also be just as much a platform for propaganda and misinformation as traditional media, but it's also easier to undermine than traditional media. We need a way for the masses to be able to publish to the masses, and social media is currently the best option to allow that, even with its downsides.
IMHO, social media should be much more heavily regulated (specifically: mandating transparency) in democracies.
Used to be, you could buy a newspaper and print your viewpoint, but everyone could see it.
Now, you can trivially individually target users, invisible to any oversight.
How is that not an existential threat to democracy? (Whether from a foreign nation-state or anyone else is immaterial)
Used to be, you could buy a newspaper and print your viewpoint, but everyone could see it.
Now, you can trivially individually target users, invisible to any oversight.
How is that not an existential threat to democracy? (Whether from a foreign nation-state or anyone else is immaterial)
SCOTUS is just going to end up affirming that companies have a first amendment right to reach those kids, anyway.
It's crazy how far from scientific consensus these extremist states on both "sides" of the USA have strayed in their performative legislation. There is no such thing as social media addiction no matter how many times celebrities, politicians, and scammer detox camp repeat it. It's not that the DSM V or ICD 10 haven't addressed the issues. They repeatedly have and each time come away saying there's no evidence to support using the word addiction to describe computer or other rich multimedia system usage. If this were 1800s it'd be a bill banning newspaper addiction. 1900s banning electrical addiction. 1920s, radio addiction, 1950s TV addiction. Whatever is the big new thing involving lots of money (and so attention from these kinds of people).
But it's not just funny sad: it also has real effects on real people and invokes the use of force in a situation where there is no coercion or damage being done.
But it's not just funny sad: it also has real effects on real people and invokes the use of force in a situation where there is no coercion or damage being done.
You are so out of touch with reality. Unlike the other mediums you mentioned, you can't leave the house without your phone.
Do you just not like the word "addiction" being used? Or you really don't think there are negative side effects from social media and how companies run it and encourage use?
I object mainly to the misuse of the word addiction. If they were not able to misuse this word then the causation of the proposed harms would shift. Imagine just for a moment that the concept of addiction does not apply here. How would the blame for the perceived harms (self reports of being sad, anxious, etc) shift? Addiction implies control and loss of volition. Removing addiction from this context and there is no control by the third parties and no loss of volition for the minors.
The mitigations for the actual situation would be much different than the performative situation. Anxiety/depression in minors has indeed gone up since 2019. But the causes are not screens. Rising housing, food, etc prices relative to incomes, the whole worldwide pandemic, knowledge of environmental damage, and increasing totalitarianism and conflicts around the world account for most of that.
In terms of what government can do, they can address the core issue of fractional reserve banking without periodic debt forgiveness meaning there is always more debt than money supply leading to worse lives and conflict for everyone including young people. To truly make peoples lives better we should have government act to create a sustainable system not pretend mandating what's on screens will fix things.
The mitigations for the actual situation would be much different than the performative situation. Anxiety/depression in minors has indeed gone up since 2019. But the causes are not screens. Rising housing, food, etc prices relative to incomes, the whole worldwide pandemic, knowledge of environmental damage, and increasing totalitarianism and conflicts around the world account for most of that.
In terms of what government can do, they can address the core issue of fractional reserve banking without periodic debt forgiveness meaning there is always more debt than money supply leading to worse lives and conflict for everyone including young people. To truly make peoples lives better we should have government act to create a sustainable system not pretend mandating what's on screens will fix things.
Yes, social media is a cause of the epidemic of teenage mental illness - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39983233 - April 2024 (1164 comments)
Health advisory on social media use in adolescence - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35874670 - May 2023 (169 comments)
Smartphones and social media are destroying children’s mental health - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35095031 - March 2023 (189 comments)
Social media is a cause, not a correlate, of mental illness in teen girls - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34901571 - February 2023 (640 comments)
Taking a break from social media makes you happier and less anxious - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31405859 - May 2022 (474 comments)
Teen mental health is plummeting and social media is a major contributing cause - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31268222 - May 2022 (1074 comments)
Heavy social media use associated with lower mental health in adolescents - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25928310 - January 2021 (348 comments)
Quit Social Media, Your Career May Depend on It - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12998698 - November 2016 (548 comments)
Edit: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/social-media-teens-menta... ("Social media harms teens’ mental health, mounting evidence shows. What now?")
> Researchers delved into whether the platform’s introduction across college campuses in the mid 2000s increased symptoms associated with depression and anxiety. The answer was a clear yes, says MIT economist Alexey Makarin, a coauthor of the study, which appeared in the November 2022 American Economic Review. “There is still a lot to be explored,” Makarin says, but “[to say] there is no causal evidence that social media causes mental health issues, to that I definitely object.”
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20211218 ("Social Media and Mental Health")
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29296-3 ("Windows of developmental sensitivity to social media")
Health advisory on social media use in adolescence - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35874670 - May 2023 (169 comments)
Smartphones and social media are destroying children’s mental health - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35095031 - March 2023 (189 comments)
Social media is a cause, not a correlate, of mental illness in teen girls - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34901571 - February 2023 (640 comments)
Taking a break from social media makes you happier and less anxious - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31405859 - May 2022 (474 comments)
Teen mental health is plummeting and social media is a major contributing cause - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31268222 - May 2022 (1074 comments)
Heavy social media use associated with lower mental health in adolescents - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25928310 - January 2021 (348 comments)
Quit Social Media, Your Career May Depend on It - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12998698 - November 2016 (548 comments)
Edit: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/social-media-teens-menta... ("Social media harms teens’ mental health, mounting evidence shows. What now?")
> Researchers delved into whether the platform’s introduction across college campuses in the mid 2000s increased symptoms associated with depression and anxiety. The answer was a clear yes, says MIT economist Alexey Makarin, a coauthor of the study, which appeared in the November 2022 American Economic Review. “There is still a lot to be explored,” Makarin says, but “[to say] there is no causal evidence that social media causes mental health issues, to that I definitely object.”
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20211218 ("Social Media and Mental Health")
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29296-3 ("Windows of developmental sensitivity to social media")
Presumably similar articles existed in the 1950s for the TV
Policymakers are doing their jobs based on evidence. Ignore the vocal minority and push on. Parent better? Hah, in this fucking macro? [1] [2] Will power? Not a thing, that's why GLP-1 agonists are so effective against addiction [3]. Social media operating under existing legal frameworks? We can change the framework to better serve the human (see: here).
[1] https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/parents-under-pressu...
[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/01/24/parenti...
[3] https://recursiveadaptation.com/p/the-growing-scientific-cas...
[1] https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/parents-under-pressu...
[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/01/24/parenti...
[3] https://recursiveadaptation.com/p/the-growing-scientific-cas...
Evidence shows many die each year due to lack of medical care; we can find all kinds of cases where policymakers engage in pageantry and little else
Policy makers do the job the public says and the public is fine not arguing for new systems, just improving their own lot through minor reforms. See teacher strikes; soon as they get theirs, they quit bothering with the labor organization…more pageantry, little else
If healthcare was the tent pole of our economy; still needs STEM Ed, still needs technology, still needs the physical logistics we have; doesn’t need stupid jobs people could do on down time
We need to stop with the minor reformism of trickle down which was only ever an obfuscated sarcastic joke about poor people
Policy makers do the job the public says and the public is fine not arguing for new systems, just improving their own lot through minor reforms. See teacher strikes; soon as they get theirs, they quit bothering with the labor organization…more pageantry, little else
If healthcare was the tent pole of our economy; still needs STEM Ed, still needs technology, still needs the physical logistics we have; doesn’t need stupid jobs people could do on down time
We need to stop with the minor reformism of trickle down which was only ever an obfuscated sarcastic joke about poor people
Yes. But aside from the occasional moral panic that went a little overboard, and while the causation is a little fuzzy, they were basically right. Sitting in front of the TV all day is unhealthy both mentally and physically.
The first of those is a reaction to another piece:
> Psychologist Candice Odgers recently stated the skeptics' case in an essay in Nature titled The Great Rewiring: Is Social Media Really Behind an Epidemic of Teenage Mental Illness?
The second and third are by the same person, who keeps mentioning his new book for some reason.
The fourth includes a counterpoint:
> “Those who feel worse may turn to social media for solace or community,” Dr Amy Orben, research fellow at Emmanuel College, University of Cambridge, said of the research. “It’s not a vacuum, it works both ways."
The fifth is an opinion piece by a computer scientist about careers.
Oh, you added some more while I was writing this. Stop it?
So for the two extra ones: the APA one opens with "Using social media is not inherently beneficial or harmful to young people." The other one is by the same guy as the NYT opinion piece, who incidentally also has a new book out on the subject.
> Psychologist Candice Odgers recently stated the skeptics' case in an essay in Nature titled The Great Rewiring: Is Social Media Really Behind an Epidemic of Teenage Mental Illness?
The second and third are by the same person, who keeps mentioning his new book for some reason.
The fourth includes a counterpoint:
> “Those who feel worse may turn to social media for solace or community,” Dr Amy Orben, research fellow at Emmanuel College, University of Cambridge, said of the research. “It’s not a vacuum, it works both ways."
The fifth is an opinion piece by a computer scientist about careers.
Oh, you added some more while I was writing this. Stop it?
So for the two extra ones: the APA one opens with "Using social media is not inherently beneficial or harmful to young people." The other one is by the same guy as the NYT opinion piece, who incidentally also has a new book out on the subject.
The comment I replied to said there is no proof of social media addiction. That is false. One does not need to convince folks on HN, only policymakers. California and Florida (both enacting such regulation) are the first and third most populated states in the US, respectively, with a total population of ~61.5M people. Federal legislation is pending in Congress.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/421...
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/421...
OK, congress can't be wrong.
What makes you right on the topic? A belief system based on a personal mental model? Genuine question. Provide evidence it is a net positive compared to the robust evidence of harm it causes, or evidence that revoking or regulating access for children is going to cause harm vs being neutral; children lived lives before social media, for example.
Continued unregulated access to social media is likely to cause harm to children and teens, based on available evidence. Not having access? What harm does that cause?
Continued unregulated access to social media is likely to cause harm to children and teens, based on available evidence. Not having access? What harm does that cause?
What "robust evidence of harm it causes"? Which of your many links is the robust one? And why is this on me? Yes, I think it's a moral panic, there are many previous examples of x entertaining thing supposedly corrupting young minds (or female minds, going further back). But you have to show how it's harmful. What is meant by "addictive" in the "addictive online feeds" that this prohibits? Extra points if you manage not to say "dopamine".
>many previous examples of x entertaining thing supposedly corrupting young minds
My reply to that is that in fact newspapers, paperback romance and adventure novels, jazz, rhythm and blues, rock music, television, video games and pornography probably have been broadly harmful (particularly to children and teenagers) but we didn't have a detailed neuroscientific description of the mechanism of harm when they were introduced, so the people pointing out the harms were ignored or shouted down, and now that those things are no longer in the news, people believe they know all they need to know about them, with the result that most believe that the verdict of history is that those thing are benign.
And it is tricky because all of those things plus social media and Youtube can be and often are used in such a way that they do not cause harm. And they all have positive effects as well as harmful effects.
My reply to that is that in fact newspapers, paperback romance and adventure novels, jazz, rhythm and blues, rock music, television, video games and pornography probably have been broadly harmful (particularly to children and teenagers) but we didn't have a detailed neuroscientific description of the mechanism of harm when they were introduced, so the people pointing out the harms were ignored or shouted down, and now that those things are no longer in the news, people believe they know all they need to know about them, with the result that most believe that the verdict of history is that those thing are benign.
And it is tricky because all of those things plus social media and Youtube can be and often are used in such a way that they do not cause harm. And they all have positive effects as well as harmful effects.
My reply to that is that in fact newspapers, paperback romance and adventure novels, jazz, rhythm and blues, rock music, television, video games and pornography probably have been broadly harmful (particularly to children and teenagers)
You forgot to mention the letter P, which of course stands for Pool.[0]
Seriously, I don't see how one can even call this a falsifiable theory, let alone a "fact". Care to elaborate as to why you believe this?
[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI_Oe-jtgdI
You forgot to mention the letter P, which of course stands for Pool.[0]
Seriously, I don't see how one can even call this a falsifiable theory, let alone a "fact". Care to elaborate as to why you believe this?
[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI_Oe-jtgdI
Hee. I applaud the boldness of this theory, and I will be wary about seductive rhythms and over-exciting fantasies in future.
(I must confess to being a jazz user.)
(I must confess to being a jazz user.)
Maybe I'm in the group that tends to be harmed by newspapers, paperback romance and adventure novels, jazz, rhythm and blues, rock music, television, video games and pornography unless they have the knowledge needed to have a healthy relationship with them (knowledge which is not exactly routinely taught in high school) and your in the group that tends not to be harmed by them.
I don't believe any evidence would be sufficient to meet your requirements to make policy actions legitimate unfortunately. The harm is diffuse, so while action to counteract it (regulatory and policy) will be imperfect, it is still necessary based on the evidence collected so far (imho). The cost to regulate is low, and the harm by regulating is also low. Good enough.
Thank you, that's reasonable. Pugnaciousness aside, I did genuinely wonder how "addictive" is defined.
Bill text:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...
> “Addictive feed” means an internet website, online service, online application, or mobile application, or a portion thereof, in which multiple pieces of media generated or shared by users are, either concurrently or sequentially, recommended, selected, or prioritized for display to a user based, in whole or in part, on information provided by the user, or otherwise associated with the user or the user’s device, unless any of the following conditions are met, alone or in combination with one another: (1) The information is not persistently associated with the user or user’s device, and does not concern the user’s previous interactions with media generated or shared by others. [And some other more trivial exceptions.]
So basically it's banning suggestion algorithms accompanied by tracking. And since I personally hate suggestion algorithms accompanied by tracking, it's hard to feel very upset by a law against it ... except that makes me feel sleazy and unprincipled if I base this only on my own preferences. The general idea is to prevent the unwitting sinking into echo-chambers where the world is made to look a particular way by a feedback effect (an automated one, in fact). That might be a good law.
I do, as I think you asked somebody else, [edit: as somebody else asked somebody else] object to the inaccurate use of the word "addiction".
Bill text:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...
> “Addictive feed” means an internet website, online service, online application, or mobile application, or a portion thereof, in which multiple pieces of media generated or shared by users are, either concurrently or sequentially, recommended, selected, or prioritized for display to a user based, in whole or in part, on information provided by the user, or otherwise associated with the user or the user’s device, unless any of the following conditions are met, alone or in combination with one another: (1) The information is not persistently associated with the user or user’s device, and does not concern the user’s previous interactions with media generated or shared by others. [And some other more trivial exceptions.]
So basically it's banning suggestion algorithms accompanied by tracking. And since I personally hate suggestion algorithms accompanied by tracking, it's hard to feel very upset by a law against it ... except that makes me feel sleazy and unprincipled if I base this only on my own preferences. The general idea is to prevent the unwitting sinking into echo-chambers where the world is made to look a particular way by a feedback effect (an automated one, in fact). That might be a good law.
I do, as I think you asked somebody else, [edit: as somebody else asked somebody else] object to the inaccurate use of the word "addiction".
> Oh, you added some more while I was writing this. Stop it?
Now how is this offensive to you?
Now how is this offensive to you?
Because it's a scattergun approach, and a dirty trick. The large volume of references gives the impression of being overwhelmingly supported by evidence, but they're really low quality, the points are contentious, and many are the same author repeated.
Also, to argue back, we have to actually read the fucking things.
Also, to argue back, we have to actually read the fucking things.
tldr for others: no evidence up to 2019, suddenly spike of depression/anxiety after 2019. I wonder why? So do they. I can think of many things that changed at the end of 2019 but social media wasn't one of them.
This won't convince you, but heuristics obviously indicate people are using social media too much [1] and that it's bad [2]. Nobody used newspapers like this. People didn't watch TV at school 2 hours a day in the 90s. You're going to nitpick that the study doesn't say people use social media for 2 hours a day at school but that's a conservative estimate based on my experience in high school and college. That and like... talk to young people.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social...
[2] https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/social-media-teen-mental-h....
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social...
[2] https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/social-media-teen-mental-h....
>There is no such thing as social media addiction
What a silly statement. There is 100% such a thing as social media addiction and it is real.
Apps consume mass amounts of data in attempts to keep you using their app for as long as possible and build a uniquely tailored experience just for you to keep you coming back.
What a silly statement. There is 100% such a thing as social media addiction and it is real.
Apps consume mass amounts of data in attempts to keep you using their app for as long as possible and build a uniquely tailored experience just for you to keep you coming back.
[deleted]
If I lie to Facebook and say I'm a minor, can I get a non-algorithmic feed? If so, it might be usable again.
Facebook might know that you posted this here.
It seems Internet alone brought science and commerce but social media exposed and unleashed idiots.
There's something to be said for minimal education barriers to posting.
We're at the point where we have a pretty high percentage of about 3-4 generations of people who are probably clinically addicted to phones/social media. We're slowly starting to come to this realization as a society but escaping addiction is extremely difficult. Especially a new one, that has no name yet, that we don't understand well, that has enveloped a large percentage of us. It's definitely an uphill battle.
The TL;DR: for "addictive feeds" is basically blocking a feed that is built based on their previous interactions with posts (whether associated via the device or the account). Doesn't impact searches or followed feeds.
So, you can still use TikTok or Facebook or Instagram, just without the hyper-personalized discovery/FYP/etc feeds.
I'm cautiously optimistic, since this kind of block doesn't really create a moat around existing businesses. And frankly, I like that kind of non-personalized feed sometimes.
EDIT: Downvoters, that's from the text of the bill itself. I recommend reading it if you don't trust (or don't like) this TL;DR.
So, you can still use TikTok or Facebook or Instagram, just without the hyper-personalized discovery/FYP/etc feeds.
I'm cautiously optimistic, since this kind of block doesn't really create a moat around existing businesses. And frankly, I like that kind of non-personalized feed sometimes.
EDIT: Downvoters, that's from the text of the bill itself. I recommend reading it if you don't trust (or don't like) this TL;DR.
I wish they'd go a step further and offer this for adults too. Facebook has become the lowest common denominator communication platform (at least in my family/friend circles). It would be great to have a site to log in and periodically scroll through family photos, hear about milestones, etc. without influencers and video shorts. I'd even pay $ to have that feed without ads.
I agree; if they're going to implement the feature, it would be awesome if adults could opt into it as well.
“Addictive feed” has quite a ring to it, doesn’t it. Conjures the image of someone eating out of a trough. It’s a good piece of legalese propaganda.